As for why did egg laying evolve in the first place you'll have to wait for someone with more expertise than me

If someone comes in here thinking they can explain to us empirically why and how egg laying started, we would love to hear this tale. I'm just afraid that our blowvation detectors would be on overload.

When one gets it right the first time, it does not need to be changed.

Which is a rather large assumption, but no matter. The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing. If you're going to be arguing against evolution I suggest you keep up with it's latest developments.

So either agree or leave? Sounds like a true evolutionist.

No, learn or leave. If you're not interested in learning then I'll quickly loose my interest in teaching. That's hardly exclusive to evolution.

Even so, it would be only an opinion.

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

So maybe we humans should be laying eggs?

Or maybe, because we came down from the trees laying eggs would be a silly idea. They tend to break when dropped from great heights.

Okay, now apply some random mutations to the duplicated DNA. Presto! New information whilst still retaining the old!

Which is a rather large assumption, but no matter. The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing.

Well going by observation, one can also see that science through evolution has not been able to totally do away with the Bible or creation. And since they cannot do it in scientific means, poisoning young minds towards any religion is a much better way to do it when your science cannot, right? That is why organizations of Christian hatred like the Rational Response Squad exist and are so popular. Atheistic evolutionist hatred goes a long way in molding a poisoned mind. And there is money and status in it as well.

But it's also going to backfire. How? When the 7 years starts, it will be the biggest revenge upon those whom have done this.

If you're going to be arguing against evolution I suggest you keep up with it's latest developments.

How about T-Rex blood and veins? O sorry,yo guys need to ignore that one because it does not support the old earth view hich is required for evolution to work. My bad.

No, learn or leave. If you're not interested in learning then I'll quickly loose my interest in teaching. That's hardly exclusive to evolution.

You go on any atheistic-evolutionist forum and it pounded unmercifully on every Christian that shows up. You guys need to bully an use strong arm tactics to convince people which in my opinion shows how weak the theory is that such things need to be resorted to even with all the mountains of claimed evidence. Is it as big as Mt. Everest yet?

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

There is a difference between learning and brain washing.

Question: Why do absolutes need to be removed from reality in order to be taught evoluton?

Or maybe, because we came down from the trees laying eggs would be a silly idea. They tend to break when dropped from great heights.Presto, if evolution is an absolute true fact. Well?

When I say that absolutes exist only in math I'm doing so by implying that equations and formulas in math alone are absolute, but when used in correlation with an observation of the real world, math can only be used to determine truth about the observation to a certain degree of certainty. Statistical analysis concerning any aspect of the theory of evolution at this point is insufficient in that it will not prove anything beyond the data it represents.

So odds are not an issue? If there is one chance in a google it will happen, right? You see it's not only odds that is the problem with evolution, it's timing. Everything in the very begining has to be so timed, with only one chance. The odds of both are not even calcuable.

Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either.

Also, how does one get rain before plants make oxygen? Plants need water, water needs oxygen? So which cames first?

1) The water? In which you must provide the oxygen source and then prove it.2) The plant? In which you must provide a water source. And a oxygen source for the ozone so that the plants can live.

Just because you can fill up the atmophere with plant loving CO2, does not mean the plants have all they need to survive. And the same goes for life.

So what are the odds that the exact timing for life to form did, when the ingrdeints needed did not exist yet?

The claim about chimp DNA itself is not absolute, but is considered accurate to a high degree of certainty, in fact the percentage has a very small (+) or (-) margin for error. As far as odds are concerned, there is no rule that says that the lower the probability of an event happening necessarily means that it absolutely could not happen, or that it won't happen in the earlier trials. In other words, if the odds for life emerging from non-life on earth were 1 in 10^100 there is no rule stopping it from happening on the first try.

So evolution is as easy as baking a cake? Interesting.

Also, do you know what the total is that 99.8% comes from? And also why the total is never printed because people would figure out evolution is not true.

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses nd hide the number.

So here is the perfect example of how evolution hides the truth in math so that the deception can be sold to the masses while the truth is hidden. If not, answer as to why no one book on evolution gives the actual number of the percentage difference?

In fact, I challenge you to find a high school book that says we are 6 million base pairs difference? You won't find one unless it is in a creation high school book. So are creationist smarter in math, or are the evolutionists hiding the truth?

And considering the amount of molecules present on the planet and the almost incomprehensible amount of possible interactions each one could have with each other,Ã‚Â I say given the right conditions which this planet naturally provides allows for the chances to be decent for life emerging especially considering the exponentially vast amount of chemical reactions that have been taking place on a daily basis since the beginning of earth.

Then every other planet should have life as well. Do they? You can one moment sell how easy evolution is so that the odds are ignored because it makes evolution work. Then on the other hand sell how hard it is as the reason it took so long to evolve. So which is it? You cannot have opposites making a theory work just because you want it to be true.

And the fact that there is such biodiversity on the planet proves that extremely low probability does not mean impossibility. And because there is life that existed long ago that no longer exists today, and there is life today that did not exist long ago its safe to say that life changes over time.

So the math is denied that does not work in evolution's favor. I already know this one.

Judging from your questions it seems that you require scientist who have been studying and gathering data to support TOE for only a couple hundred years to replicate and fully explain a process, one that has taken nature billions of years and countless unknown variables to arrive at the current state of biology, in order to prove TOE to be true. There is no way for any scientist to observe evolution directly because the task would involve that the scientist observe every individual in a given population over countless generations. Not only is this not practical, but borderline impossible for any one team of scientist lest they live thousands of years with constant surveillance on every individual. And the time needed for evolution is not an excuse, it's a necessary variable, it's the dimension that allows change.

Well you guys do imply that you have proven evolution to a true absolute fact, right? So instead of complaining when someone actually makes you own up to your claims of this, why don't you provide the information required to meet the status in which you exalt the theory to?

You see your claims that evolution is a true fact are only warranted if you can provide the evidence. Complaining that it's impossible to provide what I ask proves that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception. Just like hiding the real numbers for DNA difference. What is wrong with providing actual math numbers that is basic math? Is it to decieve the dummies in highschool to believe a deception? Explain it to me.

Consider a picture of an infant, and then consider a picture of the same person when he is 70. There is no instance in time that you can point to and say 'hey that's when he changed from an infant in the picture to the adult in the picture,' it's a gradual process with perpetual transitional stages. It's the same thing with evolution, there is no point where a lizard changed to a bird, but through time, countless transitional stages occurred where the only way to notice the difference is to look at an early stage and compare it to a later stage, much like the infant to adult.

So now growing is evolution? And you guys say I don't know what evolution is?

You keep insisting that gaps in knowledge means that there is no knowledge to fill the gaps, so you conclude god did it. But how many previously unknown causes for phenomenon were attributed to the powers of god(s) that are now explained via natural processes?

How are you going to fill the gaps of time? Are will the excuse that because of time we cannot test it, be used forever? You believe lightening started the process of life in abiogenesis right? By doing this you concede to a higher power even if it's a natural one. Now how many lightening strikes are there a year? The Earth has 100 lightning strikes per second - 3.6 trillion per year! ...Now how many spawn off new life? ZERO. So what does that tell you?

To use your cake analogy, if you go into a kitchen and find a baked cake with no recipe or instructions are you going to know how to bake it? No, you can look around the kitchen and look for clues on how it was possibly made, maybe looking in the fridge and seeing eggs missing from a carton, and a jug of milk that was left open, and flour on the counter, and any other possible countless clues that you could use to begin to put together an idea of how it happened. And let's say after 15 minutes of trials and error you still can't replicate the already made cake, does that mean it was impossible, or that you are just unaware of the exact process? Lets then assume for arguments sake that you figure out how to make it, and that it takes 1 hour to bake.

But in each step you find something missing because everytime you try to duplicate the cake it does not work. After using every known ingredient in the world, you find that you cannot duplicate the process. But you want everyone to believe the cake exists. So what do you do? You find work arounds to fill the void about the cake. So that people will buy it that the cake actually exists, and there is a process for making and baking it.

But in each instance of filling in the blanks, you actually realize more problems. So more work arounds have to be thought up. But you can only go so far before people start seeing this. So what needs to be done next is that anyone whom dares to challenge you cake idea get their credibility destroyed. Make all anti-cakers look stupid, uneducated, inintelligent morons. Just because they claim that there must be a cake maker and cake baker, when your idea is that the cake happened all by itself. So the anti-cakers get stereotyped into a box and labelled as fundamentalist. In this way your self forming cake cannot be challenged because the anti-cakers are stereotyped into being too stupid to do so. So you eliminate all challengers by doing this which allows your idea to remain supreme by other means beyond what you were supposed to use (ever heard of science).

As soon as you realize this someone walks in and says "oh look at that cake, since I have never seen one being made it must of been made by god," and you say "slow down, I'm pretty sure I have figured it out I just need to have all the ingredients and put them in the right conditions and then wait for an hour to bake." And then the other person says, "well, I'm only gonna be here for five minutes and since you can't do it it that time, and I can't see it happen then you are foolishly thinking it can happen without god."

God is not needed to bake a cake.

It's the same sort of thinking you have about evolution, we have only just barely started trying to figure out how it works, and we know it takes a considerable amount of time for it to happen, but then you are asking for the impossible task of scientist showing you the whole time consuming process, aside from explaining how they think the ingredients ended up as the current product, in a very unrealistic span of time.

But it's claimed to be a scientific theory, and a true fact, right? So now you claim we just barely touch the surface? I think you are crying uncle because I called you guys bluff on how provable evolution is in reality.

Ikester's explanation of why he considers organs of different complexity eliminate the possibility of evolution:-

Random chance and accidents. Role the dice and lets see if these two organs the vision center of the brain, and the eye will evolve at the same time.

More complexity = more mutations required. More mutations required = more time needed.

Most generous interpretation is that Ikester is starting from no eye and no optic nerve/brain and rolling one die to generate mutations possibly leading to the eye and another possibly leading to a brain. In that scheme, it would actually be difficult or impossible to synchronize the two developments.The problem is that this scheme (if it is what Ikester really means) has nothing to do with evolution.

The real situation is that the first light-sensitive spots must have been useful for survival, reproduction, etc and so right from the first must have required connection between the sensor and some responder device. Evolution of the eye-vision system then starts from a working system and the essential requirement is that neither original component is deactivated before it is replaced by something better.

The team also used fast video microscopy to detail how the eyespots mediate navigation. By stimulating one eyespot with a light beam, they observed that the cilia adjacent to the eyespot slow their beating in response to the light. The cilia on the opposite side do not slow, so propel the larvae with greater force, steering them towards the light much as differential pull on the oars of a canoe causes it to change direction. "http://www.nature.co.../7220xiiia.htmlPasted this extract for those without access.The explanation showed how this simple single cell spirals upward toward light - very useful for a photo-synthesizing organism.

Well going by observation, one can also see that science through evolution has not been able to totally do away with the Bible or creation. And since they cannot do it in scientific means, poisoning young minds towards any religion is a much better way to do it when your science cannot, right? That is why organizations of Christian hatred like the Rational Response Squad exist and are so popular. Atheistic evolutionist hatred goes a long way in molding a poisoned mind. And there is money and status in it as well.

But it's also going to backfire. How? When the 7 years starts, it will be the biggest revenge upon those whom have done this.

"The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing" and you start talking about hate crimes. And at the very end you talk about 'revenge'? I didn't think vengeance was part of the Christian belief. Turn the other cheek and all that.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that science progresses. Do you think this is a good thing?

How about T-Rex blood and veins? O sorry,yo guys need to ignore that one because it does not support the old earth view which is required for evolution to work. My bad.

Again, rather irrelevant from the point I was making, which was that you didn't know about the latest developments in abiogenesis and seemed to be implying people were just making up statistics. But if you want to talk about the T-Rex tissues that have been found I'm happy to.

You go on any atheistic-evolutionist forum and it pounded unmercifully on every Christian that shows up. You guys need to bully an use strong arm tactics to convince people which in my opinion shows how weak the theory is that such things need to be resorted to even with all the mountains of claimed evidence. Is it as big as Mt. Everest yet?

I'm talking about learning the technical jargon of the field and you go off and talk about bullying tactics. Keep it on topic ikester. If you go to forums and tell people the lingo their using is wrong because it differs from your understanding of the word, and that you're not interested in learning the different terminology, don't blame me when they get upset.

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

There is a difference between learning and brain washing.

Yes ikester, one of the major differences is in listening to other options, rather than dismissing them before even hearing them.

Question: Why do absolutes need to be removed from reality in order to be taught evoluton?

Not reality ike, just science. I've gone to the effort of explaining this on another forum. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll give you a copy/paste

Well at least birds learned to build nests.

Yep, and humans climbed down from the trees. Kind of makes some sense that we wouldn't need to lay eggs.

Sure, as long as yo get the presto magic part to work,right?

What magic ike? You've said that DNA can duplicate itself? We know that mutations happen? So which part holds the magic?

1% = 30,000,000 (30 million) differences. So .2% means we have 60,000,000 (60 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does.

That's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

The Earth has 100 lightning strikes per second - 3.6 trillion per year! ...Now how many spawn off new life? ZERO. So what does that tell you?

That you must move very quickly to get to all 100 lightning strikes every second and verify this claim.

Ikester's explanation of why he considers organs of different complexity eliminate the possibility of evolution:-

Most generous interpretation is that Ikester is starting from no eye and no optic nerve/brain and rolling one die to generate mutations possibly leading to the eye and another possibly leading to a brain.Ã‚Â In that scheme, it would actually be difficult or impossible to synchronize the two developments.The problem is that this scheme (if it is what Ikester really means) has nothing to do with evolution.

The real situation is that the first light-sensitive spots must have been useful for survival, reproduction, etc and so right from the first must have required connection between the sensor and some responder device.Ã‚Â Evolution of the eye-vision system then starts from a working system and the essential requirement is that neither original component is deactivated before it is replaced by something better.

The team also used fast video microscopy to detail how the eyespots mediate navigation. By stimulating one eyespot with a light beam, they observed that the cilia adjacent to the eyespot slow their beating in response to the light. The cilia on the opposite side do not slow, so propel the larvae with greater force, steering them towards the light much as differential pull on the oars of a canoe causes it to change direction. "http://www.nature.co.../7220xiiia.htmlPasted this extract for those without access.The explanation showed how this simple single cell spirals upward toward light - very useful for a photo-synthesizing organism.

But can the life form determine prey from the hunter using this? And can he determine a mate from the hunter? You see a vision center that interpretates each step of the process is needed.

Question: If you take two types of brain's.

1) One blank as a vegetable.2) The other as smart as one can be.

By what known process does the Brain become smart? And how does the process evolve?

You see the vision center of the brain not only has to be there. But it has to have the ability to process the information sent to it. Would you expect the speech center to be able to process vision also? A blank brain is like a blank hardrive. Information cannot be added until it has a way to be added. But, there is another problem. How does the brain learn how to process the information? It would be like a person building a computer with no bios program, and no operating system. You could turn it on, but it would do nothing.

Example: Can you run one of today's games on a Dos based computer? Of course not. Now why is that? It because:

1) The processing of such vast information, the processor is not fast enough to do.2) The base operating system is not compatible.3) The hard drive would not have enough room.

So what kind of problems will each one of the above cause?

1) If the vision information cannot be processed fast enough, a big delay in what we see and then comprehend causes problems.

Example: Could a baseball player see and hit a ball that he does not see thrown until 5 seconds after it's thrown? Can a person driving a car miss another car that pulled out in front of them 5 seconds after it did?

You see our processor being the speed that it is, allows us to function in everyday life. Vision not working like this causes more problems than it solves.

2) And if the brain cannot process the information properly, then it means nothing and might as well not exist.

3) And if the brain does not have enough capacity, it can learn no more once a certain point is reached. And like a full hard drive does when it gets full. The whole system slows down.

So how does the brain learn how to learn and also how to process from a blank slate? The brain did not evolve smart now did it?

Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either.

Ozone is needed to protect life on land with the present oxygen atmosphere. That does not mean that life could not evolve in the sea or below the sea bed where it would be screened from UV radiation, but still exposed to chemicals produced in the atmosphere.In fact UV radiation makes carbon monoxide (CO) from a methane-ammonia-water atmosphere, and CO + water vapor + UV makes several chemicals containing 1 or 2 carbon atoms."The organic molecules are dissolved in water and thus escape destruction by photolysis. Photolysis of water vapor with carbon dioxide did not yield organic compounds under these conditions."http://www.springerl...x0013g77u51v37/

Also, how does one get rain before plants make oxygen? Plants need water, water needs oxygen? So which cames first?

1) The water? In which you must provide the oxygen source and then prove it.2) The plant? In which you must provide a water source. And a oxygen source for the ozone so that the plants can live.

I think it has been clearly explained several times in this forum that 'no free oxygen' in the early earth atmosphere does not mean that oxygen is not combined in H2O, CO2 etc.Have you forgotten this, or do you have some source proving that my assertion is false? If so please provide a reference, preferably a link to an on-line site.

at's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

Arch,

Evolution supposedly explains new traits,which lead to new species not variations of existing traits.

Were looking at different traits like a baculum,etc. that exist in apes,but not humans.

at's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

Arch,

Evolution supposedly explains new traits,which lead to new species not variations of existing traits.

Were looking at different traits like a baculum,etc. that exist in apes,but not humans.

Interesting. I just looked up the differences between two humans DNA and found this article.

That's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

It's common to make a big number look small. It's all part of the selling process of evolution. You now have 5,900,000 left. Good luck.

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

There are 3,000,000 diference average if you are not related to someone. Less through family relations. That is why the possibility for organ transplants outside of the family are rare to find a match for. And no match will ever be found in a chimp.

That you must move very quickly to get to all 100 lightning strikes every second and verify this claim.

Regards,

Arch.

Very lame at best. You cannot debunk the reality, so you try to make me look stupid? Has evolution become that desperate?

And by the way. Do you think it's okay for creationsts to use evidence found by evolutionists? From the forums you guys hang out at, I'd say no. So what makes evidence you find only suitable to be used for one idea only?

But can the life form determine prey from the hunter using this? And can he determine a mate from the hunter? You see a vision center that interpretates each step of the process is needed.

Question: If you take two types of brain's........................

How about trying to walk before you can run.Evolution does these things slowly, as needs, problems and opportunities arise.

At present our organism is a single cell with several cilia around its it, and 2 eye-spots. Hardly equipped to avoid a predator except perhaps by avoiding the brightest lights where the predators pickings are richest.This could mean something like saturating the light sensor at a moderate light intensity so that motion toward the light lows down. An easy first step.Then the survivors of this first challenge are faced with some other difficulty - and so it goes for about 2 billion years.

It's common to make a big number look small. It's all part of the selling process of evolution. You now have 59,900,000 left. Good luck.There are 30,000,000 diference average if you are not related to someone.

Hang on, aren't you saying there are 30 million differences between two people (ie you and me)? So we're halfway there and we haven't even left the species yet?

Very lame at best. You cannot debunk the reality, so you try to make me look stupid? Has evolution become that desperate?

No, the problem here is that you haven't proven this is reality. So unless you can convince me that every single one of those 3.6 trillion bolts hasn't created life I'd like to see you retract that "ZERO" statement. It's an assumption based on very little.

And by the way. Do you think it's okay for creationsts to use evidence found by evolutionists? From the forums you guys hang out at, I'd say no. So what makes evidence you find only suitable to be used for one idea only?

I've told you before ike, I don't hang out in any other forums. I've casually visited one or two others, but this is the only one I'm signed up to.

As to the question, of course you can use the same data, and there's no reason why you should have to come to the same conclusions. I've just noticed a tendency to not understand the data, and therefore draw incorrect conclusions.

Also, I made a mistake in the math. It's 3 million in .1% not 30 million.

I'm not sure you read the article properly. Either that or I misread it. I thought it was saying humans are more different than we originally thought, and that chimps have been pushed back to 12% difference. I was under the impression this would actually help your stance ike.

I'm not sure you read the article properly. Either that or I misread it. I thought it was saying humans are more different than we originally thought, and that chimps have been pushed back to 12% difference. I was under the impression this would actually help your stance ike.

Regards,

Arch.

I"m sure whom ever wrote it will get refuted and destroyed if the article makes to many waves. I did not read the whole thing, I was laughing to hard when I read the: We are ten times more different between one another. So I figured the rest stayed the same (99.8%). That is why I said that. I really don't see evolutionists giving up the 99.8% without a huge fight, do you?

I"m sure whom ever wrote it will get refuted and destroyed if the article makes to many waves. I did not read the whole thing, I was laughing to hard when I read the: We are ten times more different between one another. So I figured the rest stayed the same (99.8%). That is why I said that. I really don't see evolutionists giving up the 99.8% without a huge fight, do you?

Of course not. It's been bandied around a lot for quite a few years. Wouldn't you want a great deal of evidence before you gave up such a strong belief?

This article has been around since 2006, so I was hoping someone might be able to clarify what happened to this research.